Average camera with faster lens, or high end camera with slower lens?

[Karim Ghantous]

Some years ago I asked a similar question in the Leica forum. This was not long after the introduction of the M Type 240. The M 240 had at least a stop of ISO performance over the M9. My question: which makes more sense, the M9 with faster lenses, or the M 240 with slower lenses?

 

The point was basically this: if you go from an M9 with a Summilux to an M240 with a Summicron, not only would you save money (and probably be just as happy) but you would still have effectively the same ISO performance, depending on where you drew the line.

 

Today I saw a review of the Tamron 70-300 FE. Here is what sonyalpharumors.com quoted:

 

The Tamron 70-300 F4.5-6.3 Di III RXD (700 euros) is a very good telephoto lens for a A7c or A7III. On a 24Mpix results it will be excellent at al focal lengths , all that for a light weight (545g) and a small price (700 euros). [Performance is] better than the Sony FE 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 G OSS in term of background blur, AF and sharpness for half the price and 33% less weight.

 

Link: New Tamron 70-300mm FE reviews by Marc Alhadeff, Richard Wong and Matt Granger - sonyalpharumors

And that got me thinking about the just released A7sIII vs the A7III - the latter soon to be updated. These cameras have very different target markets, for sure. But, think about this. You could choose the A7sIII with the Tamron 70-300 and an f/4 standard zoom, or you could choose the A7III with a pair of f/2.8 zooms between 24 and 200 mm, then a 300mm of some kind. So which would make more sense? And which would give you better low light performance?

 

True, the 70-300 has a sliding aperture, from 4.5 to 6.3 - which is one stop. But, you should be able to convert it to a constant aperture zoom by setting the lens to the short end, then selecting f/6.3. It doesn't sound very appealing at all, not on paper. But in effect it's actually fine, given the low light capabilities of the 12Mpx sensor. And if anything, you would benefit from the wider aperture at the long end, not the short end (hypothetically, of course). So sacrificing it at the short end isn't sacrificing very much, if anything.

 

It gets more fun when you start to compare APS-C and Micro 4/3 and so on. But, anyway, it's something to think about. There are other factors I haven't touched upon, such as resolving power, so you will have to give all these extra factors some consideration.

 

A final thought: some sports shooters are probably going to use the A7sIII over the A9. Or, they'd at least consider it. One benefit is that they can use slightly slower lenses. And AFAIK a good 12Mpx image is more than plenty for most sports photography.

[Dieter Schaefer]

Nevermind Edited November 2, 2020 by Dieter Schaefer

[Jochen_S]

I am no longer fascinated by the A7S idea (for stills) and also not hands on familiar with contemporary MILCs. Anyhow:

"No need for lens speed; I've got ISO (or flash)" used to come with an AF speed penalty or focusing challenges, with any kind of TTL focusing camera I handled so far. In that context I really wish Canon offered AF spots all over the frame even for their new slow telephoto lenses.

 

I 'm surely no fan of carrying around lens speed that I don't need but dim zooms on MILCs? I thought MILCs were finally a camera breed able to successfully focus fast glass straight out of the box. I'd pair dim zooms with tourists' DSLRs since those could at least trigger an AF assist light. Maybe I am derailed or just outdated.

[rodeo_joe1]

The Tamron 70-300 F4.5-6.3 Di III RXD (700 euros) is a very good telephoto lens for a A7c or A7III.

Not sure why Tamron have apparently downgraded their excellent SP VC 70-300 f/4 ~ f/5.6 lens then.

 

Whatever. That's completely different from a choice between an f/2 and an f/1.4 50mm prime lens.

Seems to me that you either need the shallower depth-of-field... or you don't.

 

And is there a question somewhere in your post? Otherwise it's just a private musing said out loud.

 

Do you ever actually purchase and use any of the bits of kit you post about?

[petrochemist]

There are multiple options for low light situations, but each has disadvantages.

There are occasions where adding light doesn't work. Astrophotography would be the most extreme example, but it's also the case when you want to preserve the atmosphere of a night scene, or where the flash would be a nuisance of cause potential damage...

Fast lenses give less DOF when wide open for light gathering. Often this makes them unsuitable.

Long shutter speeds can be an answer, but can cause issues with moving subjects.

High ISO is probably the most flexible but push it too far & noise becomes a serious issue.

 

Many scenes need a carefully balanced mixture of all these approaches.

 

As far as the A7iii & A7siii go both are way outside my budget & will be for years.

I don't shoot a huge amount of low light stuff, but would still prefer the s model the sensor resolution of this will be more than I need and the extra sensitivity will be useful occasionally. I've managed to find occasions with my existing cameras when f/1.2 isn't as fast as I'd like, even though it's DOF is non-existent, with longer lenses I have to make do with slower options - none of my 500mm options are faster than f/5.6, and focal ratios just get worse as I move into really long optics.

 

Whichever body I'm using their will be a place for fast lenses, but most of the time weight issues will ensure I only have more normal options available.

[Ed_Ingold]

How, exactly, is a Summilux better than a Summicron? It is one stop faster, which means little with digital imaging. The DOF is very shallow, which makes it even more difficult to focus with a .68x viewfinder. Granted you could use live view, at arms length like a tourist with a P&S or cell phone. Maybe a Summilux on an M3 (0.9x) would be a better match, except for the ridiculous cost of film and processing. For over 60 years, the Summicron family has been the sine qua non of Leica lenses. The last f/1.4 lens I felt compelled to buy was a Nikon AIS.

[dcstep]

I prefer high Dynamic Range camera, with highest quality f/4 lenses. Also consider your Noise Reduction software into your equation. So, I shoot Sony a9 for Autofocus speed and accuracy, a7RIII for Dynamic Range and resolution, with 12-24f/4, 24-105f/4, 100-400f/4.5-5.6 and 600/f4, combined with DxO's PhotoLab 4, with it's stupendous PRIME Plus NR. My only concession is not for speed, but for portrait bokeh, is my 85f/1.4. (When I shot Canon, my 70-200f/4 was an excellent portrait lens.

 

I have a friend shooting the Canon R5, which has stupendous DR and very pleasant noise when pushed.

 

Really, I don't understand carrying around a bag of fast prime lenses. One is enough and modern bodies have such great DR that you seldom need the speed in the lens.

[Ed_Ingold]

Really, I don't understand carrying around a bag of fast prime lenses. One is enough and modern bodies have such great DR that you seldom need the speed in the lens.

Rather one of the famous Leica M zoom lenses ;)

 

Actually I like carrying a bunch of prime lenses for my Sony cameras. They aren't as obtrusive for urban use, and generally sharper with less flare than zoom lenses. Prime lenses with 5-7 elements tend to produce cleaner results than zoom lenses with 15-20 elements.

[Robin Smith]

There seems to be a complete fetish about ultra fast lenses for FF cameras, mainly I suspect because manufacturers know they can charge a bundle for them, and they can also push them as better than their slower counterparts. Most of us know that this is not the case, but the companies need to make money somehow and they are pretty good at marketing to us nerds who like cameras.

[Karim Ghantous]

Was it as well received?

IIRC it sparked off an interesting discussion.

 

Maybe I am derailed or just outdated.

No, you just have a different perspective. ;-)

 

Do you ever actually purchase and use any of the bits of kit you post about?

Sometimes. If I think I want something, I want to make sure that I really want it, and I want to make sure that I know what I'm buying into. These days it's mostly window shopping.

[conrad_hoffman]

I have a fair number of fast primes I could use with my Z6 but the S series zoom is optically as good or better and in-body stabilization makes up for any speed difference. The only reason I'd use a fast prime is for minimizing depth of field. Maybe things would be different if I were a private eye shooting incriminating shots under extreme low light conditions, or a sports photographer needing a fast tele to keep shutter speeds up, but those needs just haven't come up. Thus, give me a high tech camera and slower but high quality glass.

[andylynn]

Is an A7Siii that much better than an A7iii at high iso? I thought the A7iii was supposed to be very good at that. But anyway, if I wanted a Sony kit I’d take more pixels and faster glass. I can’t really see buying an A7Siii unless it’s for high end video work.

[rodeo_joe1]

and in-body stabilization makes up for any speed difference.

True. I think IBIS is more of a game changer than it's given credit for.

 

Now, if it could do auto subject-tracking as well.... a lot of equatorial-mount manufacturers would be sweating for a start!

[Nick D.]

There is not substitute for the fast glass and it's easy to close it down to 5.6 or 8, but you can't have 2.8 from F4 zoom:)

IBIS is compensation for our shaky hands and laziness to carry tripod, it isn't improving optics.

[petrochemist]

There is not substitute for the fast glass and it's easy to close it down to 5.6 or 8, but you can't have 2.8 from F4 zoom:)

IBIS is compensation for our shaky hands and laziness to carry tripod, it isn't improving optics.

IBIS doesn't help with subject movement either :)

[steve_gallimore1]

you can't have 2.8 from F4 zoom:)

Actually, if you were to put it on a speedbooster on an APSc format camera...

[rodeo_joe1]

There is not substitute for the fast glass and it's easy to close it down to 5.6 or 8, but you can't have 2.8 from F4 zoom:)

IBIS is compensation for our shaky hands and laziness to carry tripod, it isn't improving optics.

Do you always carry a tripod?

Or always want to carry 2 or 3lbs of glass on the front of an 8oz camera?

 

How do you get more than a few millimetres of depth-of-field from your fast lens either, when you need it? You stop down, right? Taking you back to needing either a higher ISO or image stabilisation.

 

And IBIS could indeed compensate for some types of subject movement, given a slight tweak of the technology. As I suggested in my last post.

Edited November 3, 2020 by rodeo_joe|1

[Ed_Ingold]

Everyone has different priorities in cameras and lenses. At the top of my list is build quality, which may be more subjective than objective. In this regard, I look for solid, metal construction with good ergonomics and smooth operation. I want equipment that will hold under extensive use, and not let you down when it counts. I've had the other kind, and it's no fun.

 

In this case, it would be a draw between the Summilux and the Summicron. I value manual focus highly, and Leica lenses top the list, IMO, closely followed by Hasselblad lenses. The Leica lenses I bought in 1964 still feel as solid and smooth as the day I bought them, free of any noticeable backlash. Hasselblad CF lenses are great, except for their most vulnerable part - the shutter. Although Nikon lenses are built well, manual focusing is disappointing in their AF lenses - much too loose and a very short throw.

 

The attribute next on my list is uniform sharpness, corner to corner, especially when wide open. Center sharpness is largely an academic concern for me. The Summicron lenses do well in this respect, at least with film. Digital is something else, because there up to 2 mm of glass covering the sensor - millimeters vs microns for film. The M9 and M240 cover glass is thinner than most. The 50 mm Summicron does very well on the M9, but the 35 mm sharpness suffers greatly in the corners. The shorter the optical center to the sensor, the greater the effect. Lenses for digital use an inverse telephoto design to increase this distance. Model specific lenses, Zeiss Sony lenses for example, use the anticipated cover glass thickness in their optical design, and perform poorly in its absence.

 

Zeiss makes lenses for Leicas too, and are somewhat sharper than the Summicron on the M9. The focusing ring is very light, and tends to get looser after a couple of years of heavy use. Zeiss Loxia lenses for Sony have everything I cherished about Summicron lenses, except there is hardly any non-rotating part to grab when attaching or removing the lens (I glued a knurled plastic strip to the 7 mm wide part between the focusing and aperture rings).

 

A well-built lens will last through many camera bodies, including 3 Leica and 5 Sony cameras.

[Nick D.]

Do you always carry a tripod?

Or always want to carry 2 or 3lbs of glass on the front of an 8oz camera?

 

How do you get more than a few millimetres of depth-of-field from your fast lens either, when you need it? You stop down, right? Taking you back to needing either a higher ISO or image stabilisation.

 

And IBIS could indeed compensate for some types of subject movement, given a slight tweak of the technology. As I suggested in my last post.

"Horses for courses":)

[AlanKlein]

Some years ago I asked a similar question in the Leica forum. This was not long after the introduction of the M Type 240. The M 240 had at least a stop of ISO performance over the M9. My question: which makes more sense, the M9 with faster lenses, or the M 240 with slower lenses?

 

The point was basically this: if you go from an M9 with a Summilux to an M240 with a Summicron, not only would you save money (and probably be just as happy) but you would still have effectively the same ISO performance, depending on where you drew the line.

 

Today I saw a review of the Tamron 70-300 FE. Here is what sonyalpharumors.com quoted:

 

The Tamron 70-300 F4.5-6.3 Di III RXD (700 euros) is a very good telephoto lens for a A7c or A7III. On a 24Mpix results it will be excellent at al focal lengths , all that for a light weight (545g) and a small price (700 euros). [Performance is] better than the Sony FE 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 G OSS in term of background blur, AF and sharpness for half the price and 33% less weight.

 

Link: New Tamron 70-300mm FE reviews by Marc Alhadeff, Richard Wong and Matt Granger - sonyalpharumors

And that got me thinking about the just released A7sIII vs the A7III - the latter soon to be updated. These cameras have very different target markets, for sure. But, think about this. You could choose the A7sIII with the Tamron 70-300 and an f/4 standard zoom, or you could choose the A7III with a pair of f/2.8 zooms between 24 and 200 mm, then a 300mm of some kind. So which would make more sense? And which would give you better low light performance?

 

True, the 70-300 has a sliding aperture, from 4.5 to 6.3 - which is one stop. But, you should be able to convert it to a constant aperture zoom by setting the lens to the short end, then selecting f/6.3. It doesn't sound very appealing at all, not on paper. But in effect it's actually fine, given the low light capabilities of the 12Mpx sensor. And if anything, you would benefit from the wider aperture at the long end, not the short end (hypothetically, of course). So sacrificing it at the short end isn't sacrificing very much, if anything.

 

It gets more fun when you start to compare APS-C and Micro 4/3 and so on. But, anyway, it's something to think about. There are other factors I haven't touched upon, such as resolving power, so you will have to give all these extra factors some consideration.

 

A final thought: some sports shooters are probably going to use the A7sIII over the A9. Or, they'd at least consider it. One benefit is that they can use slightly slower lenses. And AFAIK a good 12Mpx image is more than plenty for most sports photography.

I think you're pixel peeping and going to drive yourself crazy.

[conrad_hoffman]

These days I use a tripod when I'm doing product shots and need some consistency, or when I'm just too lazy to hold the camera up by hand. I hardly ever need it for stability.

[Karim Ghantous]

I think you're pixel peeping and going to drive yourself crazy.

I am surprised you think so. I thought I gave the opposite impression: sacrifice some resolution for compactness, practicality and low light performance.

 

These days I use a tripod when I'm doing product shots and need some consistency, or when I'm just too lazy to hold the camera up by hand. I hardly ever need it for stability.

Tripods are very useful if you can use them. I don't think that IBIS completely replaces them for static subjects, IMHO.

 

Is an A7Siii that much better than an A7iii at high iso? I thought the A7iii was supposed to be very good at that.

Yes, the A7SIII is better.

[Nick D.]

Every camera and every lens have specific look of resulting image, there is no one size fit all solution.

Every time we take picture, we want best possible quality. Sometimes we have to make compromise, like using mid priced zooms or lightweight small camera or phone camera just to have the shot, but deep inside you know, you could do better.

After all it just tools, the less they got on the way of your vision, the better resulting image is.

[andylynn]

Yes, the A7SIII is better.

But how much better? You take a higher res sensor, it will get more noise per pixel but there’s more information so with decent work on noise reduction you can get a good result. Is an A7Siii really going to be two-plus stops better in the end?

[Ed_Ingold]

Noise is usually distributed randomly on a pixel by pixel basis. In my experience, this make noise less noticeable as the sensor resolution increases, because the pixels are smaller.

 

Image stabilization eliminates about 90% of the need for a tripod. I use IBIS (Sony) for most travel photos, bracketed HDR exposures and stitched panoramas. The processing software makes adjustments for the random motions between frames, even at 20 fps, albeit at the expense of cropping the final frame. However I make sure I have a tripod when travel and most other times as well, largely for consistency between frames. IBIS does not correct for level, centering or composition. For portraits and groups, use of a tripod (and remote release) lets you maintain eye contact and communicate with your subjects.